Canada: The United States worst friend?

[Segnosaur]

Ok, I'm not sure how much coverage this got in the U.S., but yesterday our Liberal Prime Minister Jean Cretien officially stated that they would not support the U.S. in a war in Iraq that was not sanctioned by the U.N.

Fair enough. I strongly disagree with the decsion, but I have to live with it (and I don't want this to turn into another "should we attack" debate). Afterwards, however, our Prime Minister made great efforts to stress how he didn't think this would affect Canada/U.S. relations at all.

This got me thinking: Canada has been anything but a good friend to the U.S. for a long time:
- During the 'Trudeau' years, our Prime Minister was more interested in hanging out with Castro and dancing behind the queen's back than improving relations with the U.S.
- Our military is incapable of pulling its own weight, thanks to years of neglect, the U.S. basically provides our defence
- We've had people in the government call Americans "b*stards" and Bush a "moron". (Whether you agree or not, its not a good thing to call the leader of your closest ally a moron)
- Our ambassador to the U.S. made comments on how he wanted Gore to win the election (its generally unacceptable for the govenrment of Canada to show preference during an election in the States, as well as U.S. leaders to show preference to Canadian politicians)
- Our support to the U.S. after 9/11 was lukewarm, with our leader missing some meetings in the U.S. that other world leaders attended
- We begged the U.S. to let us help in Afghanistan (in fact we needed their help to get our troups there), and then when we performed well, we withdrew them even though the U.S. asked us to keep them there (Yes, we did loose some to a 'friendly fire' incident, but other countries have lost soldiers the same way and have not abandoned responsibilities)

Following 9/11, Bush made a speech, where he thanked all of the friends of the U.S. He included many countries (such as the U.K.)but left Canada out. The U.S. later gave the explanation that Canada was such a good friend, they didn't need to mention us explicitely. That was far more than the U.S. should have done.

I personally find the Canadian acts to both treat the U.S. badly, then demanding to be acnowledged as "good friends" to be rather annoying. If our governemt is so interested in standing on its principles over the Iraq situation, then our leader shouldn't be talking about how we'll stay 'good friends'; instead, he should be saying "We're doing what we want, and will take the consequences, even if it harms relations". To do less is to lie.

To the American people, I have a question: Why do you bother to show the Canadian government the curtesy that you do? Frankly, I think our politicians need a good smack upside the head. I'd appreciate it if you did the honours.

[aerocontrols]

Maybe it's because we're ignorant?

I thought that Canadian soldiers remain in both Bosnia and Afghanistan? (I thought you were heavily committed in both areas, actually)

Also, your government is not advertising it or anything, but it has been guarding the Straights of Hormuz for us for quite some time now, doing minesweeping duties there. Essentially every American and British vessel that sails into the Persian Gulf passes right through this dangerous area made safer by your navy.

As stretched out as I believe your military is right now, I don't think you could do much more. (Perhaps I'm mistaken) A little political support would be nice, but the US is used to working alongside governments that want their support to be covert ;)

MattJ

[a fantoche de meia]

So long as Canada does not recall Pamela Anderson we'll know that we're still on good terms.

[Cleopatra]

I understand how you feel.
Why don't you fly to the States and ask for a political asylum?

[fishbob]

(Yes, we did loose some to a 'friendly fire' incident, but other countries have lost soldiers the same way and have not abandoned responsibilities) You kind of minimized this little incident. As long as the US military encourages a pill popping cowboy mentality for the operators of our most deadly weapons, I can see why Canada would want to be less involved.

[DrBenway]

It's rather nice having Canadians taking some stands opposed to the US. Gives us 'merkins some mileage when we pretend to be Canadians while abroad. ;)

[Badger]

Thanks for starting this thread, Segnosaur.

Louis St. Laurent said that the 20th century belonged to Canada. This was based on our vast resources, and resourcefullness at the time he said it.

Well, it didn't quite happen that way, and in my opinion,we continue to fritter away what potential we may have had.

The current government is just one more example of the myriad of ways we manage to do that.

So, Segno, when us Albertans pull the pin and form our own country, you're welcome to emigrate. I have a spare room you can live in as long as you need.

o fantoche de meia, are you grateful for Shania and Celine Dion too? Or are they the same kind of slap in the face as Tom Green?

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by o fantoche de meia
So long as Canada does not recall Pamela Anderson we'll know that we're still on good terms.

Sorry. That one comes with strings attached. You only get to keep her as long as you keep William Shatner.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Badger

So, Segno, when us Albertans pull the pin and form our own country, you're welcome to emigrate. I have a spare room you can live in as long as you need.


Are you taking BC with you?

[Tony]

How long has Jean Creten been PM?

[Badger]

Current mood is to take the 12 people left in Saskatchewan, the NWT, Yukon, and BC with us.

All the people in BC drive to Calgary or Grande Prairie to shop without having to pay outrageous provincial sales taxes anyway.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by fishbob
As long as the US military encourages a pill popping cowboy mentality for the operators of our most deadly weapons, I can see why Canada would want to be less involved.

Canada's bad relations are the result of their own diplomatic incompetence.

The freindlyfire incident was simply an opportunity for anti-americanism. Canada played a role in the deaths of those soliders due to it's underfunding. Fatigue, overaggressive individuals and unwieldy bureaucracy is to blame.

Without poppin' those pills there would be even more mistakes, more lives and multibillion dollar equipment destroyed. Secondly, the pilots took 5 and 10 mg of Dexadrine. That's nothing, that is barely noticeable save for the increased ability to maintain focus and reactivity over longer periods of inactivity or stress. A cup and a half of coffee gives more of a buzz.

[Bearguin]

This is his third term, isn't it? So over 12 years I guess.

I'm hoping the next vote on our gun control funds leads to a non-confidence vote that forces him to retire before November to let Mr. Martin get on with running the country.

And yes, I think Paul Martin is the best choice for P.M. out of the possible alternatives. The Alliance and Conservatives still are not credible (and I voted Alliance last time) so it will be liberals again. And can anyone imagine Sheila Copps as P.M. and being taken seriously by President Bush?

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


Canada played a role in the deaths of those soliders due to it's underfunding. Fatigue, overaggressive individuals and unwieldy bureaucracy is to blame.



I don't see how you could claim that. They were participating in a live fire exercise that was mistaken by allies for a real battle. Whatever the real reason for the incident, I have no idea how it can be claimed to be Canada's fault.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Tony
How long has Jean Creten been PM?

"Too long"

Since 1993, actually.

It's spelled "Cretien" (pronounced Kre tea enn) although many of us raging western rednecks go with your associated pronounciation of (Kree tin) to display our unhappiness with him.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Maybe it's because we're ignorant?

I thought that Canadian soldiers remain in both Bosnia and Afghanistan? (I thought you were heavily committed in both areas, actually)

Also, your government is not advertising it or anything, but it has been guarding the Straights of Hormuz for us for quite some time now, doing minesweeping duties there. Essentially every American and British vessel that sails into the Persian Gulf passes right through this dangerous area made safer by your navy.

As stretched out as I believe your military is right now, I don't think you could do much more. (Perhaps I'm mistaken) A little political support would be nice, but the US is used to working alongside governments that want their support to be covert ;)

We did have troops in Afghanistan, but we withdrew them. We will be sending them back in as 'peace keepers' in a few months. Not sure about Bosnia, but we probably do have people there. We do do a lot of peace keeping.

As for being 'stretched out', that's the fault of our government spending less per-capita on defence than almost any country in NATO for years.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I understand how you feel.
Why don't you fly to the States and ask for a political asylum?
Political asylum? nah...
I have considered moving to the states in the past. (As a software developer I would have been elegible for a visa.) Then the tech bubble burst. Oh well. I'd hate to leave family behind. (Even if it would double my pay.)

[hgc]

Canada's OK. Just imagine having an independent Quebec as a neighbor. Just like ze French, only more so.

And don't forget the big-ass pancakes!

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Badger


"Too long"

Since 1993, actually.

It's spelled "Cretien" (pronounced Kre tea enn) although many of us raging western rednecks go with your associated pronounciation of (Kree tin) to display our unhappiness with him.

Uhmmm. It's "Chretien". And I do pronounce it cretin.

[Badger]

Gods Advocate, I don't think Mr. Martin is the guy for the job, as he's one of the people who got us where we are.

In fact, IMHO, the Liberals have sampled the shallow end of the gene pool when it comes to any of the candidates. I'd vote for a bag of pucks, or 8 rolls of duct tape before I'd vote for any of them. (then again, I voted Reform, too so I think Stephen Harper is the man)

I echo your hopes about the upcoming gun registry funding vote.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Badger

So, Segno, when us Albertans pull the pin and form our own country, you're welcome to emigrate. I have a spare room you can live in as long as you need.

Thanks. I've lived in Edmonton before. I like Alberta.

Of course, the question is, what will happen to the country after Alberta leave, and Ontario realizes that it has to subsidize the entire country on its own? (Note: currently, only Ontario and Alberta give more money to the federal government in taxes than they get in services and transfers. Still, Ontario voted overwhelmingly for the Liberals. Go figure.)

[Badger]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate


Uhmmm. It's "Chretien". And I do pronounce it cretin.

Man, me and my fat fingers and blind eyes.

Thanks for the correction.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
This is his third term, isn't it? So over 12 years I guess.

As Badger said, he's been in power for 9 years. In Canada, a politician can call an election any time (within a 5 year maximum). He's called elections early, when the Liberals were most popular. (That is a common and accepted tactic; however, he called the election months earlier than needed, costing the government time and money, all to get reelected.)


Originally posted by Gods Advocate
And yes, I think Paul Martin is the best choice for P.M. out of the possible alternatives. The Alliance and Conservatives still are not credible (and I voted Alliance last time) so it will be liberals again. And can anyone imagine Sheila Copps as P.M. and being taken seriously by President Bush?

I think Martin is over rated. During his deficit cutting, most of his cuts were in transfers to the provinces; very little was cut from actual federal spending (i.e. he did not make the tough choices for himself). A lot of the deficit reduction came from policies instituted by the Mulroney government (Free trade, which helped the economy, and the GST, which transfered taxation to a more broad-based service sector). I guess he should be commended for at least keeping those policies intact (even though his party said they would remove them.)

Also, it should be noted that Martin was the Finance minister for some of the worst messups (example: HRDC). Even though it wasn't his department, he did hold the purse strings.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Badger
Gods Advocate, I don't think Mr. Martin is the guy for the job, as he's one of the people who got us where we are.

In fact, IMHO, the Liberals have sampled the shallow end of the gene pool when it comes to any of the candidates. I'd vote for a bag of pucks, or 8 rolls of duct tape before I'd vote for any of them. (then again, I voted Reform, too so I think Stephen Harper is the man)

I echo your hopes about the upcoming gun registry funding vote.

I'm having real trouble seeing any of the Alliance as credible. Harper (IMHO) has done nothing but whine from a back corner but what really bothers me is the whole farce when the bunch resigned over Stockwell Day. The whole episode just struck me as immature politics that could have been handled so much better and I've not followed much since then (out of apathy).

But I'd vote for 8 rolls of duct tape anyday.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I think Martin is over rated. During his deficit cutting, most of his cuts were in transfers to the provinces; very little was cut from actual federal spending (i.e. he did not make the tough choices for himself). A lot of the deficit reduction came from policies instituted by the Mulroney government (Free trade, which helped the economy, and the GST, which transfered taxation to a more broad-based service sector). I guess he should be commended for at least keeping those policies intact (even though his party said they would remove them.)

Also, it should be noted that Martin was the Finance minister for some of the worst messups (example: HRDC). Even though it wasn't his department, he did hold the purse strings.

Just to support your point, I think that a lot of the deficit reduction came solely from reduce interest payments on our debt and had interest rates not fallen, we would not have seen anything close to the reduction we did.

So given the current collection of clowns, who would you support?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
The Alliance and Conservatives still are not credible (and I voted Alliance last time) so it will be liberals again.
I forgot to mention this in my last post:

I think the idea that the Alliance is 'not credible' is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People say they are not credible because they don't have enough support to form a government, and they don't have enough support to form a governemtn because they are seen as being 'not credible'.

I think they have decent policies. I didn't like the religious leanings of Stockwell Day, but I would put up with that if we could get a party in power that would make the right decisions. And I don't want to get into a "media bias" debate, but I do think the Alliance gets unfairly treated by the media here:
- The CBC is government run and heavily unionized
- The biggest newspaper chain and the Global network are run by friends of the Prime Minister
- The Toronto Star (biggest city daily) and Globe and Mail (one of our national newspapers) are both either liberal or left-of-center
The alliance gets criticized for being right wing racist red necks, but the media overlooks that: they have a higher proportion of minorities in parliment, the Liberals have had their own racist problems (A black liberal senator has said she has been called racist names like Sambo by other liberals), and Canadians agree with many of their policies

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate

Just to support your point, I think that a lot of the deficit reduction came solely from reduce interest payments on our debt and had interest rates not fallen, we would not have seen anything close to the reduction we did.

Good point. Plus, the economy did happen to get hot just at the right time.
Originally posted by Gods Advocate

So given the current collection of clowns, who would you support?
I'd probably go alliance. I believe we are overtaxed, and the Alliance are the only onces who would be willing to cut taxes. (It should be noted that most of the Liberal 'tax breaks' were simply re-indexing of tax brackets, so they are not really cutting taxes, just not taking as much in taxes as they could.)

I also like their refugee and military policies.

I wasn't too keen on Stockwell Day because of his religion, but I would have heald my nose and voted for him anyways. However, Harper seens to be more about policy.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I forgot to mention this in my last post:

I think the idea that the Alliance is 'not credible' is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People say they are not credible because they don't have enough support to form a government, and they don't have enough support to form a governemtn because they are seen as being 'not credible'.

I think they have decent policies. I didn't like the religious leanings of Stockwell Day, but I would put up with that if we could get a party in power that would make the right decisions. And I don't want to get into a "media bias" debate, but I do think the Alliance gets unfairly treated by the media here:
- The CBC is government run and heavily unionized
- The biggest newspaper chain and the Global network are run by friends of the Prime Minister
- The Toronto Star (biggest city daily) and Globe and Mail (one of our national newspapers) are both either liberal or left-of-center
The alliance gets criticized for being right wing racist red necks, but the media overlooks that: they have a higher proportion of minorities in parliment, the Liberals have had their own racist problems (A black liberal senator has said she has been called racist names like Sambo by other liberals), and Canadians agree with many of their policies

I guess I remember too many mistakes. Going back to Preston and the Stornaway bowling alley and the like. I agree with the stated policies and do agree that the media has pushed too much of the redneck on them (yes they had a couple whacko's in the party but I think they were dealt with well). As I said, I voted for them last time around and have voted either Alliance or Reform in the past. But the whole Day thing really struck me as infantile and has left me thinking that they would be a bunch of clowns if in power.

I'd like to see a Conservative Minority with an Alliance opposition and have the Liberals trounced like BC's NDP party. But I believe the Liberals are headed for another majority and the West will be under-represented again. Given that scenerio, I'd rather have Martin than any of his opposition.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur



I'd probably go alliance. I believe we are overtaxed, and the Alliance are the only onces who would be willing to cut taxes. (It should be noted that most of the Liberal 'tax breaks' were simply re-indexing of tax brackets, so they are not really cutting taxes, just not taking as much in taxes as they could.)

I'd love it if taxes were left alone and they made a serious dent in our debt. Further to my point above, if interest rates rise and we haven't attacked the debt, we will be in a deficit position again. This was the position taken after the last budget by the CA institute and, as they get my dues, I have to agree with them.



I also like their refugee and military policies.

I wasn't too keen on Stockwell Day because of his religion, but I would have heald my nose and voted for him anyways. However, Harper seens to be more about policy.

Maybe I need to pay more attention, but I don't hear enough out of Harper. Kinda a buzz in the backround to what the Liberals are doing.

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Essentially every American and British vessel that sails into the Persian Gulf passes right through this dangerous area made safer by your navy.


CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT...CANADA HAS A WARSHIP? (http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml)

But seriously, the Canadian Navy is doing a great job, even-though our military is in a terrible state

[Badger]

I think Stephen Harper could use some polish, because he doesn't come across well in Parlaiment, but he's much smarter than the average bear. He refuses to get into the mud slinging that is typical of proceedings, and I think he learned a lot from watching Stockwell Day implode.

As you indicate, credibility is a big challeng that lies in front of him, but there was no one else in the party that has the skills to pull it off.

I keep hoping he'll start to show his real abilities.

[Kthulhu]

Stop it! stop it! STOP IT!

This is just a cunning ruse by you sly canadians to make us americans think we don't have the monopoly on idiotic, wasteful, and moronic politicians! Well I see through your dastardly plans.

I know full well that you're all up there getting blasted on Molson and Moosehead, wearing fur caps with ear flaps and flannel shirts, and playing way too much with pucks and sticks; living in a complete ecological paradise as one with the mighty beaver and wily moose.

All the while laughing at your puny southern neighbors as you "under fund" your military in preparations of world conquest!

Well, I say take back your Shania, your Tom Green, your Celine, and your Mike Myers. (Ok, we'll keep Mike but he's on thin ice after that last Austin Powers flick). We will no longer bow to the tyrany of the Great White North!

Plus canadian bacon is just icky...

*wink*

On that note, I actually quite enjoyed this thread as I did a similar one on fark.com lamenting british politics. It's refreshing to know that democracy is just as stinky world-wide as it is here in the ol' USA. (Not that I'd trade it for anything else in the world). To paraphrase a quote from someone much brighter then myself (Churchill maybe?) "Democracy is the worst form of government excepting all the others" (or some such :) )

~The Thing That Should Not Be

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Kthulhu
Stop it! stop it! STOP IT!

I know full well that you're all up there getting blasted on Molson and Moosehead, wearing fur caps with ear flaps and flannel shirts, and playing way too much with pucks and sticks; living in a complete ecological paradise as one with the mighty beaver and wily moose.



I don't drink Molson. Too close to American beer. I drink MicroBrew (or close to it). The other funny thing is I've seen less snow this winter than my Brother in law in North Carolina ;)



All the while laughing at your puny southern neighbors as you "under fund" your military in preparations of world conquest!

Well, I say take back your Shania, your Tom Green, your Celine, and your Mike Myers. (Ok, we'll keep Mike but he's on thin ice after that last Austin Powers flick). We will no longer bow to the tyrany of the Great White North!



Shania is good with the sound off (did you see her in the Super Bowl?), Tom Green belongs down there, we can all agree to ship Celine to France and I don't care what you do with Meyers. As long as you keep Shatner, I'm happy.



Plus canadian bacon is just icky...


Now thems fightin words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having said all that I have, I honestly love my country and just hate to see it being represented on the world stage by idiots.

Now to go grab a good Porter and a pound of back bacon for dinner.

[Kilted_Canuck]

What would happen to Sask. if Alberta were to leave? Would we leave with our richer cousins to the west, or remain with those easterners with funny accents?

If I were able to vote yet, I would probably vote for alliance, since they seem to be the only alternative to the Liberals. If we lived in a perfect world, I would want the NDP to do better just because (I don't think) they have screwed up as much as any of the other parties.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally posted by John Bryce


CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT...CANADA HAS A WARSHIP? (http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml)

But seriously, the Canadian Navy is doing a great job, even-though our military is in a terrible state

I won't c&p outrageously funny quotes from the article...there are too many. Check it out.

Sorry aboot that guys. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Badger
Current mood is to take the 12 people left in Saskatchewan, the NWT, Yukon, and BC with us.

All the people in BC drive to Calgary or Grande Prairie to shop without having to pay outrageous provincial sales taxes anyway.

You know there'd be more people in those provinces if you guys hadn't shipped all your natives to Nunavut.

[Badger]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


You know there'd be more people in those provinces if you guys hadn't shipped all your natives to Nunavut.

It was almost called "Bob" instead of Nunavut.

http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/articles/whatname.htm

http://www.ualberta.ca/~mbeaudoi/Bob.html

Cold does things to your brain.

[FFed]

I was completely embarassed to be a Canadian after our government decided not to back the US. This country is a joke.
And if Sheila Copps becomes the next PM, I am out of here.

[Badger]

Originally posted by FFed
I was completely embarassed to be a Canadian after our government decided not to back the US. This country is a joke.
And if Sheila Copps becomes the next PM, I am out of here.

Please see my comments above on Alberta leaving Canada, and who it'll take with it. We will be needing a port, and so you're welcome to come with us! It'll be fun!

Certainly more fun than a Canada run by Tequila Sheila.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

It'll be a dark day when Ralph Klein becomes president of the Nation of Alberta.

Not that it'll happen. It's just a fit our petty Premier likes to throw once in a while.

As for Chretien, I wholeheartedly approve of his stance on this war. That makes two things he's done that I applaud. Not a bad record for the federal Liberals.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
As for Chretien, I wholeheartedly approve of his stance on this war. That makes two things he's done that I applaud. Not a bad record for the federal Liberals.
Fine, you're anti-war....

But the question is, how do you feel about all of the statements he's made about how it won't affect the relationship between the countries. Don't you feel he should call it honestly? (Say: "This may mess things up between our countries, but its the right thing to do.") That was the thing I am most annoyed about right now.

[FFed]

Originally posted by Badger


Please see my comments above on Alberta leaving Canada, and who it'll take with it. We will be needing a port, and so you're welcome to come with us! It'll be fun!

Certainly more fun than a Canada run by Tequila Sheila.
Actually I have been a BC separatist for years, and western Canada separation would be great. I have zero interest in Eastern Canada.

[voidx]

I agree that we should be seen to be supporting our American allies in their war with Iraq. However, Chretien did make a good point. As mentioned, we are securing the Persian Gulf for the US and British navies, and are returning to Aghanistan in the coming months for more Peace keeping duties. But the truth of the matter is, as spread out as we are with these responsibilities, and considering the condition currently of our military, there really isn't anything significant we can contribute to the actual assault on Iraq. That shouldn't have stopped Chretien however from backing and showing his support to the US.

The state of the Canadian military also is kind of a catch 22. The military complains of under-funding which they are. But is then lambasted in the press when they try to get the most mileage out of their meager funds by purchasing old helicopters and trying to retro-fit them. The public does it, MP's do it. But what would general Canadian opinion be if a plan was put forth to sharply increase the amount of spending on our military apparatus? There would be bitching and whining all over the place. You can't have your cake and eat it too people.

[FFed]

Originally posted by voidx
I agree that we should be seen to be supporting our American allies in their war with Iraq. However, Chretien did make a good point. As mentioned, we are securing the Persian Gulf for the US and British navies, and are returning to Aghanistan in the coming months for more Peace keeping duties. But the truth of the matter is, as spread out as we are with these responsibilities, and considering the condition currently of our military, there really isn't anything significant we can contribute to the actual assault on Iraq. That shouldn't have stopped Chretien however from backing and showing his support to the US.

The state of the Canadian military also is kind of a catch 22. The military complains of under-funding which they are. But is then lambasted in the press when they try to get the most mileage out of their meager funds by purchasing old helicopters and trying to retro-fit them. The public does it, MP's do it. But what would general Canadian opinion be if a plan was put forth to sharply increase the amount of spending on our military apparatus? There would be bitching and whining all over the place. You can't have your cake and eat it too people.
I think there was a lot of support to increase military funding after Sept 11. The minority that opposes this is vocal, and we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

All Chretien had to do is say that we are on your side and will fight too. The US knows what military we have and how little we can add, and would not expect much. It would be more symbolic than actual hardware. But because he chose not to, we can expect no resolution to trade disputes like softwood lumber. But Chretien doesn't care about that since it is mainly a western Canada problem.
As far as I am concerned, Chretien gave the US the middle finger. Maybe when the US is finished in Iraq, they could head up to Ottawa and save us from our dictator.

[Badger]

Voidx, one doesn't have to have one's cake and eat it too. One just has to redistribute the slices.

I'm thinking the money for the HDRC, gun registry, and ADDITIONAL funds alloted for bilingualism would be a pretty good boost to the military budget to begin with.

Lyle, I disagree with you about Ralph Klein. He's better than most politicians. At the very least, he's NOT another lawyer. Under his premiership, our provincial debt has been significantly reduced, even during periods of low oil revenue, taxation has been reduced, and increases in health care spending and infrastructure spending are happening. Why do you think it'd be a dark day?

FFed, I have an interest in Eastern Canada, but resent that they don't condsider the entire country. For instance, why does money flow into Quebec when they have so much industry and so many natural resources? Why did Ontario and Quebec industry get a break by not having to submit to the Kyoto Protocol, while the oil and gas industries, and farmers out west do? Why do we ALL have to speak French (or Quebecois to be more precise) when there are such restrictions on any language OTHER than french in Quebec? A triple E senate would go a long way to helping things out. But we'd be way ahead of the game by separating, to be sure.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Badger

FFed, I have an interest in Eastern Canada, but resent that they don't condsider the entire country.

What I can't understand is why Ontario continually allows themselves to get screwed.

We vote in a right-of-center provincial government. But then, federally, almost every seat goes to the Liberal Party. But the liberal party does very little to assist Ontario. (Remember, Ontario and Alberta are the only 'net contributors' to Canada; most government policies are designed to help those east of the Quebec/Ontario border.) We must be masochists here.

[voidx]

Voidx, one doesn't have to have one's cake and eat it too. One just has to redistribute the slices

Heh people don't like having to give up their big slice of cake for a smaller one :D

All Chretien had to do is say that we are on your side and will fight too. The US knows what military we have and how little we can add, and would not expect much. It would be more symbolic than actual hardware.

Exactly my thoughts as well.

[FFed]

There has been some talk about Chretien saying he won't support the US without UN approval because he is looking for some UN position when he is not PM anymore? Then he can look like a real hero to the UN when he seeks the job. Anyone know anything about that?

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by FFed
There has been some talk about Chretien saying he won't support the US without UN approval because he is looking for some UN position when he is not PM anymore? Then he can look like a real hero to the UN when he seeks the job. Anyone know anything about that?

Nothing other than my opinion and, while the above seems possible, I think Chretian is trying to leave with a legacy. Kyoto does not seem to be doing it so he tried to be the worlds peacemaker and is P.O.'d because Bush ignored him.

Seems the only legacy he is going to leave is that of a bully.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030320.ugunn0320/BNStory/National/


"Ottawa — Jean Chrétien presided over an emotional caucus meeting Wednesday that had one MP in tears as the Prime Minister threatened to expel from caucus any Liberal member who votes against additional funding for the controversial gun registry."

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Fine, you're anti-war....

But the question is, how do you feel about all of the statements he's made about how it won't affect the relationship between the countries. Don't you feel he should call it honestly? (Say: "This may mess things up between our countries, but its the right thing to do.") That was the thing I am most annoyed about right now.

I haven't heard of any major business boycotts on the part of the States because of this. I can't see a serious diplomatic falling out coming from this either. Chretien may be mistaken about that, only time will tell, but I wouldn't jump at calling these comments dishonest yet. I may well be wrong. How do I feel about it? All politicians should be honest, all the time. That's how I feel about it.

I don't want to enter into this as a Chretien apologist, by the way. I'm generally ambivalent at best. But I do support his stance on this issue. This is the U.N.'s call, not America's.

And what's with the ellipsis? Yeah, I'm anti-war. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. hasn't made its case. If it had, I'd feel otherwise.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin


I haven't heard of any major business boycotts on the part of the States because of this. I can't see a serious diplomatic falling out coming from this either. Chretien may be mistaken about that, only time will tell, but I wouldn't jump at calling these comments dishonest yet. I may well be wrong. How do I feel about it? All politicians should be honest, all the time. That's how I feel about it.

There may or may not be a fallout. I don't know. But, I do know that the Americans have been more gracious to Canada than they should (praising Canada as a 'good friend' when we've been anything but.)

Maybe the fallout has begun... There are supposedly long lineups at the borders right now. (Likely for security reasons, but they may have been avoided if our government tightened its own security.) Perhaps we may have gotten to softwood lumber disputes settled earlier too.

Again, I ask... do you think that Cretien should have indicated that it might cause a decline in Canada/U.S. relations?

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Badger

Lyle, I disagree with you about Ralph Klein. He's better than most politicians. At the very least, he's NOT another lawyer. Under his premiership, our provincial debt has been significantly reduced, even during periods of low oil revenue, taxation has been reduced, and increases in health care spending and infrastructure spending are happening. Why do you think it'd be a dark day?


I'm not fond of utility deregulation; it sounded good on paper, but it didn't work. I don't think it was ever supposed to, really. Klein was as much as advertising for Epcor during a press conference a couple of weeks ago. Fah! No good has come of this.

I'm torn on the PC movement towards privatizing health care. I'm not too keen on it leading to an American-style private system, but that may not necessarily happen. We'll see.

Spending money on the current health care system is fine. Spending more would be even better! I spent a week in the hospital last fall, three days of that unable to sit up, or really move at all. An electric bed would've been nice. The nurses at the Grey Nuns couldn't even find a wheelchair. Or a toothbrush. Or toothpaste. Or soap. Aren't you supposed to stay clean in hospitals? I was at the Grey Nuns because the University, Royal Alec, and Misercordia Emergency Rooms were all refusing any more patients. At two in the afternoon on a Wednesday. My actual medical care, my surgery and anesthetic and whatnot, were top notch. Everything else sucked rocks. This won't do.

In short, this government is letting our healthcare system slide. Yet it has $100 million to overhaul VLT's. Fah!

I'm leery about the PC approach to the Kyoto accord (and I agree, it asks for too much, too soon). On the one hand, it's too American. On the other hand, it seems to be just step 1. We'll see. What I really don't like is the PC propaganda campaign. Government-provided soundbites on the radio slamming the ratification of the Kyoto accord are both vague and vaguely creepy. Kinda like Klein!

There have also been numerous scandals regarding Klein and his business associations over the years. The Calgary hospital laundry services issue, receiving shares in return for dishing out corporate welfare to a Chinese software firm, and public lottery funds used for private gain come to mind.

PC fiscal policy...needs some work. Klein's, and therefore the party's, attitude towards those to the left of him socially, however, has got to go. He makes anyone who doesn't agree with him out to be a petty whiner.

Imagine that! All that, and not once did I call him an odious little troll.

Oh. Never mind.

[Segnosaur]

This is a bit off topic, but hey, its good to see a Canadian thread thriving...

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin


I'm torn on the PC movement towards privatizing health care. I'm not too keen on it leading to an American-style private system, but that may not necessarily happen. We'll see.

Spending money on the current health care system is fine. Spending more would be even better!

... Story about hospital stay snipped....

In short, this government is letting our healthcare system slide. Yet it has $100 million to overhaul VLT's. Fah!


It should be noted that the biggest source of health care funding cuts has come from the federal government. At least here in Ontario, the provincial government is actually spending more per capita on health care than before. However, the feds have cut more than the province has raised funding. (By law, the feds should be providing around 50% funding of the health care system; now, I think its around 11 or 15%.)

As for VLTs... We don't have them here in Ontario (at least not that I've noticed), but don't they raise money for the government, which can then be invested back into health care?

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin


I'm leery about the PC approach to the Kyoto accord (and I agree, it asks for too much, too soon). On the one hand, it's too American. On the other hand, it seems to be just step 1. We'll see. What I really don't like is the PC propaganda campaign. Government-provided soundbites on the radio slamming the ratification of the Kyoto accord are both vague and vaguely creepy. Kinda like Klein!


Kyoto may be a big mistake. Unfortunately, the issues are far too complex for people to understand in a simple radio spot. (And is that any different than some of the 'sound bites' provided by our federal government on issues?

[Badger]

Lyle, with regards to health care, I venture that there is enough administrative waste (too many cooks in the kitchen) to more than cover front line expenses. My dad was a doctor at the University, and I know what it was like 15 years ago. It's even worse now, with more levels of bureaucracy to go through.

Keep in mind that this bureaucracy sucks resources that could be directed to patient care. The regional health authorities are the biggest problem in that system.

VLT's, as with any lotteries, are a tax on people who are bad at math. Yet, spending that kind of money to upgrade them was a stupid thing to do.

I'm sure utility deregulation would have worked better if there were more competition in the market place. As it is, with the same old boys running the same utility system, they just jack the prices. We're too small a market for it to be viable for other companies to start up competing utilities.

WRT Kyoto, I'll say this, and then shut up about it. Golbal warming is, as yet, an unproven theory. Any efforts to counteract it are misguided.

Those scandals you mention, aren't they some distance in the past? Of course he did recently burst into a homless shelter, drunk, and end up in a verbal sparring match with some of the occupants, telling them to shape up and get jobs.

At the very least, we live in a province with no provincial sales tax, and low income tax. Maybe it was just luck that the Progressive Conservatives were in power the whole time our oil revenue has been flowing. But I am glad that deficit budgets are now supposedly illegal in our province.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Badger
Those scandals you mention, aren't they some distance in the past? Of course he did recently burst into a homless shelter, drunk, and end up in a verbal sparring match with some of the occupants, telling them to shape up and get jobs.

Ahh Come on. A little drunken disorderliness?

Our Premier got pissed in Hawaii, drove drunk, was speeding, weaving etc. and got caught. Even did the tear thing on TV after.

Biggest problem I had with it was he got drunk on Martini's and not some good BC wine.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

If you ask me, the law requiring budget surpluses be put towards the debt was made as an excuse. That way, when top-heavy Regional Health Authorities (which Klein created) ask for some of that surplus, Klein can shrug and say "But I can't. It's the law. I can't break the law now, can I?"

Sure he can. It's not an all-or-nothing proposal. Get the health authorities what they need, put the rest towards the debt. Everyone wins.

It matters not to me that the Feds are to blame for fewer dollars. We have the cash to make up the difference. We need the services. We should pony up. If people in Alberta want to point fingers at Ottawa too, fine. As long as the trains run on time, as it were.

I don't care if all of Klein's scandals are in the past, either. Just because the Sun and Journal have short memories doesn't mean I do as well.

Anyway, this got out of hand, and it's my fault. All I wanted to say in the first place was this:

I've never heard any talk about Alberta separating from Canada. I got a kick out of Klein mentioning it as a big issue some months ago because I've never known it to be a big deal to anyone, and I've lived here all my life.

Sorry for the hijack.

[Badger]

Ralphie did the tear thing on TV too. He also admitted to having a drinking problem, and quit, as well as quit smoking.

Heh, then they passed the utility deregulation bill (I'm saying this tongue in cheek. I don't know for sure) that Lyle mentioned.

He's no fun anymore.

Really, though, I expect better out of elected officials, only because they have chosen to live a high profile life. I know they're human and make mistakes, but you'd think they'd avoid such glaring ones.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

There may or may not be a fallout. I don't know. But, I do know that the Americans have been more gracious to Canada than they should (praising Canada as a 'good friend' when we've been anything but.)

Maybe the fallout has begun... There are supposedly long lineups at the borders right now. (Likely for security reasons, but they may have been avoided if our government tightened its own security.) Perhaps we may have gotten to softwood lumber disputes settled earlier too.

Again, I ask... do you think that Cretien should have indicated that it might cause a decline in Canada/U.S. relations?

No. Not without reason to think it would. To hint otherwise just in case might rattle people. And their investment bankers too.

The absence of such a comment didn't really faze me because it hadn't occured to me that there would be any diplomatic fallout from this. Maybe some grumbling and silliness of the freedom fry sort, but nothing real.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
If you ask me, the law requiring budget surpluses be put towards the debt was made as an excuse. That way, when top-heavy Regional Health Authorities (which Klein created) ask for some of that surplus, Klein can shrug and say "But I can't. It's the law. I can't break the law now, can I?"

Sure he can. It's not an all-or-nothing proposal. Get the health authorities what they need, put the rest towards the debt. Everyone wins.

It matters not to me that the Feds are to blame for fewer dollars. We have the cash to make up the difference. We need the services. We should pony up. If people in Alberta want to point fingers at Ottawa too, fine. As long as the trains run on time, as it were.

I don't care if all of Klein's scandals are in the past, either. Just because the Sun and Journal have short memories doesn't mean I do as well.

Anyway, this got out of hand, and it's my fault. All I wanted to say in the first place was this:

I've never heard any talk about Alberta separating from Canada. I got a kick out of Klein mentioning it as a big issue some months ago because I've never known it to be a big deal to anyone, and I've lived here all my life.

Sorry for the hijack.

And now the number of Regional Health Authorities are being reduced and people are whining. Can't win no matter what they do.

With regard to budget surpluses going to pay down the debt, it seems very reasonable to me. It's how I run my finances. Why should the province shuffle the debt off onto future generations? In a little while, the debt will be gone, and there'll be money for all the other stuff. Short term pain for long term gain.

With regard to "we need the services", no we don't. We need less people abusing the services. I've been to the emergency room a couple of times, and to clinics a few more times (note, either there were holes in me that shouldn't be there, or joints pointing in non standard directions, or the time I fell on my wife's leg while we were dancing) and the majority of people sucking up resources there had niggling problems that needed the application of common sense rather than public medical service.

Re: separation, there's always an undercurrent. Apparently, I hang around different people than you.

Shall we start a new thread on this, or just leave it alone?

[Flatworm]

One thing that makes the Canadian government's attitute towards the U.S. irritating to me is that opposition to U.S. policy has become yet another cheap political trick. In the U.S., if you want to buy some cheap votes and damn the consequences for the nation, you can always introduce religious legislation which you know will be struck down by the courts, or play the race card.

In Canada, you have to show the U.S. that we don't have to go along with whatever they say. I'm not commenting on any issue in particular, but in my opinion this has led the Canadian government to be contrary towards the U.S. for the sake of contrariness.

I want to say to Jean Chrétien, "All right, we understand that you have a large penis. Now put it away and make yourself useful."

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thanks everyone. I've just read through the thread again and it's been a very interesting diversion from the UScentric tenor of most threads on the forum. :)

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Badger



Shall we start a new thread on this, or just leave it alone?

Oh, let's just leave it be. It's all been said before.

[davefoc]

Segnosaur,
I enjoyed your post . I suspect we share somewhat political views and it was nice to see that they are alive and well in Canada.

I think I disagree with your main premise a little, as have several of the other posters. Speaking for myself, I have very good feelings about Canada and Canadians. I pretty much have gotten over that whole war of 1812 thing.

Nobody has mentioned, the bravery of your diplomatic personnel when they helped get the American hostages out of Iran. I was thrilled by their actions and can't imagine not thinking pretty highly of Canada after that, no matter what.

On the topic at hand, I understood your PM's position. The case for or against war was not clear cut and I thought it was reasonable for him to take the position that he did if he came to believe it was wrong to act without UN agreement On the other hand if he realized, based on shared intelligence, that Iraq posed a serious threat that needed to be dealt with and he still did what he did, then I would agree that the guy is a major weasil. But, I'm still OK with Canadians.

[Supercharts]

Fans boo as U.S. national anthem is played
By Associated Press, 3/21/2003 00:47
MONTREAL (AP) Fans booed during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before the New York Islanders' 6-3 victory over the Montreal Canadiens on Thursday night.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/080/sports/Fans_boo_as_U_S_national_anthe:.shtml

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Fans boo as U.S. national anthem is played
By Associated Press, 3/21/2003 00:47
MONTREAL (AP) Fans booed during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before the New York Islanders' 6-3 victory over the Montreal Canadiens on Thursday night.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/080/sports/Fans_boo_as_U_S_national_anthe:.shtml

I saw that in the Globe this morning. Utterly disgusting. I don't know what else to say except sorry.

[FFed]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Fans boo as U.S. national anthem is played
By Associated Press, 3/21/2003 00:47
MONTREAL (AP) Fans booed during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before the New York Islanders' 6-3 victory over the Montreal Canadiens on Thursday night.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/080/sports/Fans_boo_as_U_S_national_anthe:.shtml

I am sorry too.

I have never been more embarrassed with being a Canadian in all my life as I have this week. The first thing I am doing Saturday when I am at the mall is to buy an American flag sticker to put on my truck. I want to show my support for the troops who are working hard to protect me and my family.

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Fans boo as U.S. national anthem is played
By Associated Press, 3/21/2003 00:47
MONTREAL (AP) Fans booed during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before the New York Islanders' 6-3 victory over the Montreal Canadiens on Thursday night.

That is shameful. I remember Americans booing the Canadian nation anthem last year. It seems both countries have idiots. :(

[Segnosaur]

Yet more Canadian news...

Heard Harper made a very good speach in the House of Commons yesterday, criticizing the government for its lack of support in the war effort. (Some were saying it was the best speech in the House in years.)

I didn't hear the entire speech, but some of the points he made were:
- By failure to act, Canada is denying its heritage. In the past Canada had been a leader in the fight for freedom, in some cases (WW1 & 2) getting involved even before the Americans
- You cannot selectively accept and reject your allys; to do so will leave the country not only alone, but dependant on others

Does anyone have a transcript of this speech? Or better yet, an audio version?

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Yet more Canadian news...

Heard Harper made a very good speach in the House of Commons yesterday, criticizing the government for its lack of support in the war effort. (Some were saying it was the best speech in the House in years.)

I'll believe that when I heard it. The last speech I heard Harper give in the House, he ended with "God bless..." Canada, the Queen, and the USA. I thought I was going to be sick. :rolleyes:

I'll look for it...

[John Bryce]

Segnosaur,

This might be what you are looking for.

Steven Harper On Iraq (http://www.canadianalliance.ca/english/leader/index.asp)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by John Bryce

I'll believe that when I heard it. The last speech I heard Harper give in the House, he ended with "God bless..." Canada, the Queen, and the USA. I thought I was going to be sick. :rolleyes:

I'm not happy with the religious leanings of the Alliance party (just as I'm not happy with the religious leanings of Bush). However, when stacked up against the corruption and incompetence of the liberals, I'll risk a little religious influence to support a party that might make a change. Is it really worth sacrificing the economy, the military, the lives of Canadians (as is happening with the Sea King helicopters) just to make sure we have a party in power that doesn't use the word g*d as much? (I'm athiest by the way.)

Edited to add: Thanks for the link to the speech by the way. Greatly appreciated (by someone who was too lazy to look for it himself.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by FFed

Actually I have been a BC separatist for years, and western Canada separation would be great. I have zero interest in Eastern Canada.

Interesting, I wasnt aware there was any kind of separatist movement in Canada. How big is this movement?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tony


Interesting, I wasnt aware there was any kind of separatist movement in Canada. How big is this movement?

Actually, the big separatist movement is in Quebec (where French is the main language). In fact, the current party that runs Quebec is the Parti Quebecois, who want to separate. They've had 2 referendums on separation; one a few decades ago (they got about 40% of the vote), and one just a few years ago (where they actually got about 49.5% of the vote).

Of course, the problem with those referrendums is that they were very, well, shady. The first one didn't even say "we want to separate", it just said something like "we will think about separating". In the more recent one, the Parti Quebecois was claiming they could separate, but still send Politicians to help run Canada, keep Canadian pasports, etc. And you complain about Florida's vote? The last referrendum had many ballots marked as spoiled, but strangely enough the 'no to separation' votes got rejected more often than the 'yes' votes.

On the other hand, the western separatist movement (the idea being that Alberta, and possibly British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would form their own country) is much smaller, and not really taken as seriously. (There is no party which is pushing the idea either.) Whereas Quebec wants to separate because they have a different 'language and culture', the Westerners want to separate because they feel their concerns are ignored by Central Canada (where most of our elected representatives are from). Also, they are tired of seeing tax money flow in to Quebec to appease the separatists. So for them, its more econimic and political than cultural.

Frankly, I think western Canada could be very successful if they were on their own. They've got a diversified economy (Oil in Alberta, farming in Saskatchewan/Manitoba, industry in B.C.) and the people are more 'independant'. Quebec is more likely to separate however, but for them it would be a disaster. (They are currently supported by the rest of Canada, with billions of dollars being spent there by our federal government, and if they separate they will loose that cash. Plus, they've driven out many of their best people and companies with repressive language laws.)

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I'm not happy with the religious leanings of the Alliance party (just as I'm not happy with the religious leanings of Bush). However, when stacked up against the corruption and incompetence of the liberals, I'll risk a little religious influence to support a party that might make a change. Is it really worth sacrificing the economy, the military, the lives of Canadians (as is happening with the Sea King helicopters) just to make sure we have a party in power that doesn't use the word g*d as much? (I'm athiest by the way.)


I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State, so when a politican starts "preaching"... :mad:

I'm no fan of the Liberals, but the Alliance just doesn't impress me.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by John Bryce


I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State, so when a politican starts "preaching"... :mad:


I'm a believer in separating church and state too... But, the question is:
- What would be the overall impact? Yeah, the leader may believe in god, but how much damage could they do in one or 2 terms in office (especially with the Supreme court balancing things off.) What laws have they proposed to force religion on people? (It should also be noted that the Alliance party has the largest ethnic diversity in the house of commons, per member. Some of them have different religions.)
- Given what you think the overall impact of having a religious believer as leader would be, what would you be willing to sacrifice? 10% of your salary in taxes taken by the liberals? 20%? Loosing your job? Canadians loosing their life in Sea Kings?

You likely have other reasons to disagree with them, but basing you voting patterns on a single issue (which probably isn't even part of their 'election platform') is a bad idea.

By the way, have you ever heard of the phrase that the United Church is the "New Democratic Party in prayer"? I know they've actually had ministers elected to the house of commons.

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
What laws have they proposed to force religion on people?

An anti-abortion law. That's one I can think of right away.

[zakur]

Originally posted by John Bryce
That is shameful. I remember Americans booing the Canadian nation anthem last year. It seems both countries have idiots. :( Come on folks...this was at a hockey game. Hockey fans boo the refs when they first take the ice. I've been to several hockey games in my life, and I have to say that the majority of hockey fans are cretins.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by John Bryce


An anti-abortion law. That's one I can think of right away. [/B]
Good point. But, it should be noted that the Alliance party believes in holding referendum on 'important' issues like this, so if they stay true to their word, it would likely be voted down by Canadians.

[John Bryce]

I don't disagree with everything in the Alliance policy, although I do find it very vague in many areas (Defence, for example).

I agree with the Alliance that we should have supported the Americans, although I think this removal of Saddam is the right thing done the wrong way. I think the Alliance has taken the attack on the Liberal's decision in the wrong direction. To me, they should have just asked why Canada could not add its support to the U.S. in the same way the Netherlands has. To say, yes we are with you, but we will only give you verbal support. That way we could support the U.S. on a verbal level, but also keep out of the invasion which is what the majority of Canadian want.

Just my two cents.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by John Bryce
I don't disagree with everything in the Alliance policy, although I do find it very vague in many areas (Defence, for example).

Given the fact that most people don't really consider defence an issue, its understandable why they don't spend too much time talking about it. And to be fair, you have to compare their message to that of the other parties. Did the liberals spend much time talking about defence in the last election?

Originally posted by John Bryce
I agree with the Alliance that we should have supported the Americans, although I think this removal of Saddam is the right thing done the wrong way. I think the Alliance has taken the attack on the Liberal's decision in the wrong direction. To me, they should have just asked why Canada could not add its support to the U.S. in the same way the Netherlands has. To say, yes we are with you, but we will only give you verbal support. That way we could support the U.S. on a verbal level, but also keep out of the invasion which is what the majority of Canadian want.

Well, people have been complaining about the Alliance being 'invisible'. (Part of it could be that they aren't handling themselves well, but I think the media is stacked against them.) Well, this was a chance for their leader to make a speach that would get himself recognized. If they 'just' asked for verbal support, people would probably continue complaining about how the Alliance is not doing enough to get recognized.

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Given the fact that most people don't really consider defence an issue, its understandable why they don't spend too much time talking about it. And to be fair, you have to compare their message to that of the other parties. Did the liberals spend much time talking about defence in the last election?

Let's look at the Liberal Defence Policy (http://www.liberal.ca/lpc/issues.aspx?site=issues&ID=10#1) and the Alliance Defence Policy. (http://www.canadianalliance.ca/english/policy/index.asp#_Toc8204936[/url)

Which defence policy would you vote for if you were just the average Canadian?

Well, people have been complaining about the Alliance being 'invisible'. (Part of it could be that they aren't handling themselves well, but I think the media is stacked against them.) Well, this was a chance for their leader to make a speach that would get himself recognized. If they 'just' asked for verbal support, people would probably continue complaining about how the Alliance is not doing enough to get recognized.

You are right, an opposition party needs to get noticed, but they also must play the game of politics. Like it or not, perception is everything in politics. Many Canadians don't support the invasion of Iraq, and for Mr. Harper to stand up and seem like a mouth-piece for American policy on Iraq isn't very smart in my opinion.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by John Bryce


Let's look at the Liberal Defence Policy (http://www.liberal.ca/lpc/issues.aspx?site=issues&ID=10#1) and the Alliance Defence Policy. (http://www.canadianalliance.ca/english/policy/index.asp#_Toc8204936[/url)

Which defence policy would you vote for if you were just the average Canadian?
[/B]
Actually, both of them are pretty useless. The liberal one doesn't really say where they want things headed... they say what they've bought the military, and thing's they've done for the people (well, after 9 years, they should have bought something) while ignoring the replacement for the sea kings, or mentioning the leaky subs, etc. (Notice everyting is in 'past tense', so they haven't said what they plan to do, which isn't a policy at all.) The Alliance one is also vague, but they do mention 'restoring' the military (indicating more spending), and closer integration between the military and intelligence units. So, in that way, at least the Alliance is suggesting what it will do in the future, as opposed to the Liberals just mentioning a few of the good things (without mentioning the bad) that they've done in the past.

Personally, I'd like to see one of the parties come out with concrete numbers (like "We will add X billion, and buy this equipment in a few years.") But I guess that's too much to hope for.

As for average Canadians, well, like I said, most don't care about defence.
Originally posted by John Bryce

You are right, an opposition party needs to get noticed, but they also must play the game of politics. Like it or not, perception is everything in politics. Many Canadians don't support the invasion of Iraq, and for Mr. Harper to stand up and seem like a mouth-piece for American policy on Iraq isn't very smart in my opinion. [/B]

Well, "many" canadians don't support the invasion. And "many" canadians don't think we should have income tax cuts. And "many" canadians think the gun registry is a good thing. A party should take stands on issues that not all canadians agree with, if they feel it will eventually improve the country.

As for being a "mouth piece for American Policy", I think that depends on whether the person is pro-war or anti-war. The anti-war people often assume this is about the U.S and their imperialism. The Pro-war people like to think it is about freeing the Iraqi people, and removing one of the major problems in the world. It just happens to be the Americans that were spearheading the campaign.

I also like the way Harper mentioned that in the past, Canada has lead the way (in things like World War 1&2), even before the Americans, showing our heritage as a country that stands up for freedom. (Or, that used to be our heritage.)

[voidx]

Well I'd be a little careful on the WWI and WWII references. Canada entered into both those conflicts as a part of the British Empire. We were beckoned by them to assist and we did. Our armed forces fought bravely and honourably in both conflicts and earned the respect of many of our allies in both wars without question. Not to say that had we not been part of the British Empire, we still would not have entered into either war, but to use our entry into those conflicts as an example of a past rich in the fight for Freedom seems a tad off base, especially in an arguement about whether or not to enter into the Iraq conflict. Remember that WWI and WWII were global conflicts, in which the decisions over both of them were won by a hairs-breadth. Every contingent of troops and equipment was vital. That is not the case today in Iraq. The US has more than adequate resources to handle the situation there. I do agree though that Chretian could have at the very least given verbal support to the US led action.